Explainer: Australia's nuclear-powered submarine deal is fueling anger in the country. Here's why
The US and UK will be sharing technology and expertise with Australia to help it build nuclear-powered submarines as part of a newly-announced defense pact between the three countries. The move has sparked fury in France, which has lost a long-standing agreement to supply Australia with diesel-powered subs.
But it's not only the French who are furious. Anti-nuclear groups in Australia, and many citizens, are expressing anger over the deal, worried it may be a Trojan Horse for a nuclear power industry, which the nation has resisted for decades.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke personally to her Australian counterpart, Scott Morrison, to tell him the vessels would not be welcome in the waters of her country, which has been a no-nuclear zone since 1984.
French ambassador: Australia made a 'huge mistake' canceling submarine contract
The French ambassador to Australia issued a sharp rebuke of the country's decision to cancel a submarine contract with France, calling it a "huge mistake," according to a report from The Associated Press.
Ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault said that the original agreement was based on sincerity and trust. However, the diplomat said, "This has been a huge mistake, a very, very bad handling of the partnership," according to the news wire. "I would like to be able to run into a time machine and be in a situation where we don't end up in such an incredible, clumsy, inadequate, un-Australian situation," Thebault said.
[...] The deal is a blow to France, which was set to help provide 12 diesel-electric submarines under a deal worth roughly $66 billion, the AP noted.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 20 2021, @11:20PM (7 children)
Time to read Nevil Shute again, class.
https://www.amazon.com/Beach-Nevil-Shute/dp/0307473996 [amazon.com]
If you don't like that monster, Amazon, feel free to find another source, like Granpa's closet.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by NPC-131072 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:04AM
Are you coming out?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:52AM (4 children)
It seems you've linked to the incorrect version
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:11AM (2 children)
There's a version of Shute's book that doesn't end with the extinction of mankind?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @08:27AM (1 child)
Read the reviews.
Your link went to a dumbed down re-written version suitable for 3rd graders. Not even just a Reader's Digest condensed version, they actually changed the language to be simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @11:44AM
Wow, someone actually admitted to trusting Amazon reviews?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 24 2021, @08:04AM
FWIW, a Lexile measure of 780L is around 3rd grade. Seems to be about right for Runaway.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 21 2021, @10:27AM
I'm not surprised, TelAviv did strike me as something like a desert Detroit.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20 2021, @11:37PM (25 children)
Let me guess, they retreat faster than any other submarine? Also, how the fuck is a submarine cost $5.5 billion.. there's some US contractor-level padding going on there.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:08AM (22 children)
I pretty much agree that a sub shouldn't cost $5 billion. But, to add insult to injury, those $5 billion subs were diesel boats. I mean, seriously? Diesel boats? I toured two of the United State's latest, greatest, most modern diesel boats before they were decommissioned. I hope that for $5 billion, the French boats don't smell of diesel, don't smell of batteries, have enough room to stand up straight, and enough room left over to give the crew proper bunks without hot bunking. Those boats were phased out for multiple reasons, including the fact that they're freaking NOISY by today's nuke sub standards. I mean, you can hear the damned things with sonar from 30 miles away, even further when conditions are good.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:18AM (1 child)
Modern diesel-electric submarines are exceptionally quiet when running on battery power; quieter than nuclear submarines (as are AIP sub). The problem is their range sucks, but for many countries that doesn't matter because they only intent to patrol their limited coastal waters. Obviously for Australia, that makes no sense; their "coastal waters" are immense and Australia is expected to be able to patrol a significant portion of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. They cannot do this effectively with diesel-electric submarines; they need nuclear submarines for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:33PM
That's why God created ASW aircraft.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:53AM (16 children)
Pretty good in shallow waters, where nuke subs can't go.
The move to nuke subs signals that Australia wants a larger regions of influence than its own territorial water and surroundings.
Why do you think China went ballistic in their reaction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:03AM (11 children)
China hasn't gone ballistic - - - YET!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:12AM (10 children)
Oh, but they did. Just flinging ballistic poo for now [news.com.au], but ballistic they went.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:28AM (5 children)
Quite the empty headed tirade there. In effect, he is asking, "Do you want to be a real combatant, or do you want to sit back, not be shot up until we've whipped all the combatants? Then, we'll send our conventional troops in to rape and pillage."
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:42AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:59AM (1 child)
Typical wolf warrior diplomacy [wikipedia.org] that started shortly after Winnie the Pooh was anointed as the Supreme Secretary of CCP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 21 2021, @06:06AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 21 2021, @06:01AM
Runaway, you are a, well, you know, no need to repeat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:57PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlt1vbnXhQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by gawdonblue on Tuesday September 21 2021, @10:46PM (3 children)
c0lo, you're playing with dangerously stupid stuff there. You should know better than going near News Corp, and you certainly shouldn't be linking it for anyone else to stumble across.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22 2021, @01:37AM
Haven't you realised he's a literal shill yet?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 22 2021, @05:13AM (1 child)
Get it straight from the horse's mouth [abc.net.au], it's the original interview with no transcription as it was recorded by the Australian Broadcast Corporation (our public, non-commercial TV station).
I guarantee you it beats whatever level of trolling and bad faith that newscorp was able to come to date - I picked whatever written source turned out the first on the topic in a Google search, because that level of stupidity as the displayed "wolf warrior diplomacy" is hard to even equal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Wednesday September 22 2021, @10:42AM
Hey, I'm not arguing with the sentiment, just the link. The whole world is better off if Mews Corp is ignored.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:21AM (3 children)
I'm not sure you thought that one out. It's the size, the weight, and the draft of the ship, sub, or boat that determines how shallow the waters they can navigate.
We played hide-n-seek and peeky-boo with a Soviet nuke boat in the Florida keys, in water as shallow as 50 to 75 feet. We had one advantage, in that we could go even shallower to take shortcuts from one point to another.
Now, if you're claiming that nuke attack boats are larger than diesel attack boats - I'm not sure enough to argue with you. But, then you're probably getting into those old-timey smelly, miserable little boats that I mentioned earlier. If you're claiming instead that boomers are larger than attack boats - well, that's the nature of the beast. Boomers go to sea knowing that they won't see the surface again for several months, they've got to be big enough to carry all the provisions necessary to keep the crew alive.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:55AM
Size, weight and autonomy.
You aren't going to push a sub so deep down if the time to get there and resurface depletes your available energy. As such, you won't need a hull as strong to pressure if you can't afford to get deep and stay there long enough. Which means it would be stupid to equip a Diesel uboat with a hull that heavy it's not gonna be useful ever.
Which means that a Diesel uboat can be made lighter and it's you interest to do so.
The reverse it's true: if you can afford to stay submerged for months, then it's in your interest to go deeper too. But you are going to pay a price on the hull thickness.
Now, mass and available power will determine how maneuverable you are - the mass is still the same underwater (you know? The thing that defines inertia) and changing direction is a matter of mass and power available. And maneuverability becomes an issue when you operate around Great Barrier Reef - it's way beefier than the slender Florida reef (at only 6-7 km wide).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @06:04AM (1 child)
Wholely shit! Runaway war stories! From back when he had a real job, sort of, collecting a government stipend to chase fish around the Caribbean? Well God-damn! Thank you for your service, Runaway, such as it was..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:26PM
He wasn't chasing fish. He was just along for the ride.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:32PM (2 children)
Of course they won't, they're French. The French navy has a proud history of building floating hotels [youtube.com] to go to war in.
The Masséna in particular was, um, special. When the French navy asked for an offensive ship the designers got it completely right but also completely wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:13PM (1 child)
French boats smell of fromage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:52PM
And frottage.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:08AM (1 child)
Because the submarine France wanted to sell didn't even exist yet; the proposal was to take a nuclear submarine and swap out the reactor with a diesel-electric system. It should be obvious to anybody that this is not an insignificant undertaking. The french said they would have the plans ready years ago, but still don't. They haven't even started building these submarines, yet they're whining like stuck pigs about losing the sale of something they haven't even made yet. It's pathetic and the French public should feel embarrassed with their government for being so petulant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @11:48AM
Who cares about the French. These are the same people that seem perfectly happy to surrender their country to dingers.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 20 2021, @11:54PM (4 children)
The real story is about missiles, and troops based in Darwin [yahoo.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:12AM (3 children)
Not real sure how to interpret that article. More US Marines will be given Darwin awards? Hmmmm . . . sounds ominous.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:24AM (2 children)
Yeah, if they don't remember to look up
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:56AM (1 child)
Vegemite smeared behind the ears makes a pretty good repellent for drop bears. Won't help a bit against snakes and spiders, tho.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:34PM
And whatever you do don't try dealing with the snakes by pouring Tooheys over them. Snakes have a strong reaction to the smell of urine.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:05AM (16 children)
Find yourself a globe, flip it upsidedown, and look at the way the world is shaped around Australia. They have a huge amount of space they need to patrol. Nuclear propulsion submarines are the only viable option for Australia, anything else would be a waste of their time and money. The only reason they were looking at buying diesel-electric subs from France in the first place is because the Australian public has anti-nuclear inclinations, but clearly Australian officials are now consider the threat of war to be real enough to make pragmatic purchasing decisions.
The French government are whining that they lost a sale that was never going to be good for Australia in the first place. These asshats should be ignored.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kell on Tuesday September 21 2021, @01:19AM (10 children)
Agreed, though I'm Australian and pro-nuclear, so apparently I'm in the minority? I do my best to inform my fellow compatriots that nuclear power makes total sense for us: lots of available water on the coast for cooling; huge, barren , geologically inert interior for storing waste; large stores of readily available uranium for the taking. Honestly, if it wasn't for the oil-supported greens screeching about it it would have happened long ago.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday September 21 2021, @01:32AM (4 children)
Right now, the biggest practical downside to nuclear power here in Australia is cost. Renewables are already cheaper to construct and run than nuclear power plants. The right time to get nuclear into the grid down here would have been 20 or 30 years ago, except public sentiment did not allow for it.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday September 21 2021, @08:01AM (3 children)
You haven't really done your research have you?
The small modular nuclear power plants being developed produce more reliable power in far greater amounts than renewable can for he foreseeable future.
One of the advantages of a modular core concept is that existing coal and natural gas fueled power plants can be retrofitted to use nuclear power with greatly reduces the cost. And the electricity produced is constant 24/7. Solar, wind, and other fringe renewable sources have a long way to go before they can even think about meeting Australia's energy requirements.
Solar and other renewable energy, excluding Hydroelectric, currently only provide about 3-4% of the worlds energy. Nuclear already provides 15% and it doesn't have the limitations that Hydroelectric plants have.
The only way we are going to phase out the fossil fuel currently being used in power plants is with nuclear energy. There isn't any other way we can reduce the green house gas emissions within the time frames needed to prevent major climate collapse.
The main thing Australians need to be doing is getting over their fear of all things nuclear and learning about the technology. There are reactors now that are walk away safe and would allow Australlia to leverage their local fissile and fertile nuclear fuel sources. Chief among them being Thorium. Australia's rare Earth metal mines have already dug up decades worth of thorium fuel. They just need to make use of it.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @08:49AM
Few coal plants have been built in Australia within the past 40 years. The existing ones are on life support.
Natural gas or bust, except farmers wanting approval to build turbines on their unproductive windy hills.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by coolgopher on Tuesday September 21 2021, @09:14AM
My my, you've got an axe to grind it seems.
I said nothing about reliable (technically, consistent) generation in my post. I said that it was cheaper to build renewables (on a per-kWh basis) than nuclear. Especially when, as you admit, modular power plants are still being developed. We're not at a point where we're churning them out by the hundreds and have gotten the cost down accordingly. Maybe we never will, due to (often unwarranted) radiation fears.
Have you been down here? With storage we could easily power the entire country from solar, and export a lot on top of that. We have the space, we have the sun. We lack the will.
I disagree. There are many storage mechanisms both available and in the making. My prediction is that they, together with a variety of renewables, will end up as the "winners". Had the perception of nuclear been less tarnished by the omg-scary brush, that would have (and in my opinion should have) been a quicker option.
This I agree on. The NIMBY factor is way too high. Personally I expect I'd have less inconvenience from a modern nuclear power plant next door than the public housing I do have.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 22 2021, @06:44AM
I hear dear 'Lisbeth Holmes have great experience in producing small modular things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @02:48AM (1 child)
Maybe hopefully AUS will build out the uranium mining / refining infrastructure needed for the subs, and that will open the doors to nuclear fission powered electricity generation. With safeguards, of course. Or maybe thorium reactors like this Chinese one: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w [nature.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday September 21 2021, @08:34AM
Submarines can use Thorium too although the the ones they will get from the USA are going to be Uranium fueled simply because thats the only type of subs the US and UK have right now and thats where all their experience is. Refitting them for Thorium shouldn't be too hard as Thorium can be used as a solid fuel as used in nuclear subs in addition to the Fluoride molten salt designs you've heard about.
If your interested in Thorium as a fuel and the molten salt reactors try watching the first 5 minutes of this [youtube.com] for a start. It has a lot of history and background about Thorium and molten salts that China has actually acted on.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @06:03AM (1 child)
I suppose you're okay with the idea of Cashed Up Bogans who watch Foxtel and have a 3-Ford Ranger household being trusted with radioactive material, saying "it's aww gud" when they ignore proper procedure every 5 minutes.
Nuclear energy needs a military-level discipline along the entire infrastructure. Not an Aussie trait.. >_>
Plus, the nuclear power generation cycle went into the red 2 decades ago. Even John Howard dropped the idea when shown it could never be profitable, the other countries with no-expense-spared Nuclear Weapons programmes being the only ones able to break-even from the sale of bomb-fuel. And UKUSA have absolutely no intention of letting AU develop their own nuclear weapons.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @08:03AM
That doesn't stop Peta Credlin posting articles in the Herald Sun about nuclear energy.
But if the Nuclear shills on Slashdot could demonstrate how new generation thorium reactors can be deployed within 20 years to replace the La Trobe Valley's last coal fired power station then I'm sure Dan Andrews would be all ears.
(Score: 1) by BeaverCleaver on Tuesday September 21 2021, @11:06PM
Yeah, and if there was any talk of using nuclear for energy (where it could benefit the Australian taxpayer who, after all, is paying the bills) instead of for submarines (where it will benefit nobody except a few contractors and overseas militaries) that would be true. But instead, the .au government has painted a giant target on the whole country, pissed off our biggest customer (China) AND our third-biggest customer (the EU) and done *nothing* to decarbonise Australia's electricity production.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:57AM (1 child)
Hogwash. They are threatening war.
Christmas Day, 2039 - remember that date. It's the date Australia unilaterally declared World War 3 on China upon delivery of their first submarine.
It was a brief war, as China destroyed Australia's entire fleet in one afternoon.
The average man in the street is wondering why Dutton and Morrison are choosing to repeatedly failing Diplomacy 101 with our biggest trading partner with whom their government themselves signed a free trade agreement last decade. Verily Trumpian.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @09:06PM
...what
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 21 2021, @04:00AM (2 children)
... for a in-depth defense against a potential enemy that already uses nuke subs.
Not that I mind some uboats at a decent price that can deal with shallower waters, a nuke sub will have difficulties there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @11:13AM
If Australia wanted those they should have talked to the Germans. They build the best non-nuclear submarines in the world at a decent price per unit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:47PM
The diesel-electric submarines France proposed are just as big as nuke submarines because the proposal was to take existing nuclear submarines and denuclearize them. The whole proposal was farcical.
(Score: 2) by JustNiz on Tuesday September 21 2021, @02:36AM (3 children)
The French are pissy about something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:02AM (2 children)
Hey now, they have a reputation to uphold.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:18AM (1 child)
penis
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @03:23AM
AC has a reputation to uphold.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dltaylor on Tuesday September 21 2021, @07:35AM (2 children)
The French know how to build nuclear-powered vessels, including submarines. If they need English-language labels and manuals (which I suspect they could provide), worst case find some literate Canadians to do them.
Why didn't they propose those as an alternative to diesel-electric hybrids? Here's plan H for the hybrids and here's plan N for the nuclear-powered versions, with the cost trade-off, long-term maintenance, etc, and technology transfers in plan N.
Sounds like they misjudged the market and and got scooped by a competitor that offered what the customer really wanted.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 21 2021, @10:42AM
I suspect timing had a lot to do with it. If the US had won the initial contract it probably would have been for diesel subs because that was what was wanted at the time. Later in the relationship, both sides become invested in the original idea and the realities of cost and schedule become more apparent to both sides.
Now that the needs have shifted, a new contracting partner is more flexible (and less realistic) than one which has significant development investment in a different deliverable.
I'm sure the French could deliver nuclear subs, but they probably don't have the same global military and political incentives to help out the Aussies with a competitive price or delivery schedule.
I suspect the French are disappointed at losing a big profit making deal in favor of a bigger money losing deal. They are likely posturing to recover their sunk costs as well as some of that future profit their people were counting on. I doubt they are disappointed about losing the labor obligations.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by snmygos on Wednesday September 22 2021, @01:07PM
"Why didn't they propose those as an alternative to diesel-electric hybrids? Here's plan H for the hybrids and here's plan N for the nuclear-powered versions, with the cost trade-off, long-term maintenance, etc, and technology transfers in plan N.
Sounds like they misjudged the market and and got scooped by a competitor that offered what the customer really wanted."
The most uninformed comment here.
Australia made an tender for diesel submarines, France, Japan, Germany made an offer and the French offer was selected. Then the wind has turned and so has the weathercock...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:25PM (6 children)
I don't know quite why Australia has the need for nuclear submarines unless it's part of a larger strategy of encirclement of China. If that's the case then the next story would be how India is getting nuclear submarines too (apparently they are building their own but want what Australia is getting).
If Cold War 2.0 is brewing it's gonna get ugly. China is already way ahead of the game with its infiltration and subversion of institutions and key sectors of America and Europe.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:37PM (3 children)
They don't really have the need for any sort of submarines, however they've had so much egg on their face from the Collins class that this is a way of buying their way out of embarrassment.
It's also pretty unlikely to actually go through, there's half a dozen governments between now and delivery, any one of which will be able to get support to cancel it by pointing out how much money it'll save.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @12:49PM (2 children)
China have been accusing Australia of being America's b*tch. And what better way to confirm it than to buy their subs.
Involving the UK is merely giving the finger to the French over Brexit while negotiating a favourable free trade agreement.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 22 2021, @07:15AM (1 child)
Look, I'm not happy about but, in a confrontational world, a 25mil people country is gonna be some superpower's bitch, unless they live in a geography and resource availability that nobody wants (i.e. Switzerland) - which is not the case of Australia. The only question is who's bitch their country is? China is sour it wasn't them.
Too bad we evolved towards living in a confrontational world, it's not like there's an absolute necessity. But it is what it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 22 2021, @04:20PM
If the choice is between a fellow Western democracy and a communist dictatorship, I'd hope it would be an easy call to make. And nobody in America has forced Australia to give up its precious vegemite.
We've always lived in a confrontational world. Projects like the UN and the EU were meant to counter that, but they've had mixed luck at best.
China and Russia as nation-states are playing the role of spoilers to it, and the trans-national elites who have rigged every game from the financial system on up are well on their way of subverting institutions meant to ensure peace, prosperity, and justice for all into peace, prosperity, and justice for themselves and serfdom for absolutely everyone else.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 21 2021, @09:02PM
Bingo.
India *already has* nuclear submarines.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 22 2021, @07:23AM
In today-Australia's case, it's more likely a case of defense-in-depth. The Chinese sneaked (or attempted to do so) their "infrastructure projects" in the insular nations around, projecting some influence too strong to the tastes of our politicians.
Speaking personally, even letting aside my life experience of growing up in a communist authoritarian country, I'm bad of learning/speaking a tonal language, so I can't say I don't approve the politicians choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21 2021, @01:01PM (4 children)
I wonder if subs have switched to the newer battery technologies?
Seems like they should be able to at least double the no diesel ranges.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday September 21 2021, @01:49PM (3 children)
You want super stable, long term storage. Not storage that might blow you up. Then again, lithium batteries are better than they used to be.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 22 2021, @07:24AM (2 children)
LiFePO4 don't catch fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday September 22 2021, @02:41PM (1 child)
With enough heat, everything catches fire, but doing a bit of searching, they are indeed the safer choice vs other Lithium batteries. Probably the biggest reason they aren't on most Submarines is their newness. As they become more proven safe, they may yet be put in military designs. Still, just because they are the safest Lithium battery, doesn't mean they will ever be safe enough for a military design.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 23 2021, @02:41AM
Heh. They're at least as safe as chunk of Torpex or PBX, I'd say.
And, in case of a perforation, they don't release acid able to eat through your boat's hull.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0